How Will Users Reach the Preferences Environment?

Owned by jtglidepath
Last updated: Dec 31, 2012Version comment
3 min read

This project will be designing and building tools for users to create and edit their preferences (and for practitioners of various types to edit preferences in cooperation with or as proxies for the users themselves). From a technological point of view, it may be sufficient to create a single editing tool for users, a bare form with all possible features and settings laid out with checkboxes, etc. But who would use such a tool? How would they find it? An assessment that would cover all the dimensions of ability and all the possible need/preference options that could be implemented in technology products, would take days. Even if the tool were highly intelligent and able to hide or eliminate evaluation items or even whole sections, it might not fit into the time that actual use environments would tolerate. [In fact it might be worth doing some sort of rough calculation of the time and other resources required for the different pieces of a comprehensive evaluation, using the proposed frameworks.]

There is always the risk that the outputs of this project will reach only the most sophisticated and self-activated users (and practitioners), those who are well-connected to technological developments, and especially those who are already receiving and using effective accessible technology solutions.

If we could look backward from a successful large-scale implementation several years from now, we may be able to see 3 paths by which a larger mass of users would have been able to enter the preferences evaluation environment; each path will have implications for our design.

Extensions of 'Clinical' Practice

Rather than expect the professionals closest to 'our' accessibility preferences domain to adopt an externally created tool, we should adapt our design to their currently popular tools and practices. These vary widely by domain; audiologists have very different tests, tools, and professional norms than special educators or occupational therapists, so our tools will have to be dimensionally flexible.

  • Evaluation tools and protocols -- who is actually using what, and how did they and the tools get together?
  • Outreach to practitioners -- what are their current practices and expectations? Would they be willing to serve as ambassadors?
  • Importing data from clinical tests -- instead of re-assessing, can we access and transcode existing test results? What are the implications for our framework and design?

Extensions of Mainstream Technologies

Some mainstream technologies (as we are collecting in the Deliverable 1 spreadsheet) provide ways of adjusting the interface via permanent settings, and even point to assistive technology options external to the mainstream products themselves. Preference editors could bridge the gap between what the current product can do and what external assistive technologies could do.

  • Operating systems. For example, the Windows Ease of Access wizard lets you select and set OS features, and points you to the world of AT for anything beyond that. But there is no operational connection between the 2. Could our tool stand between them, at the 'end' of the wizard, as both a wizard enhancer and a link to the world of AT?
  • Applications
  • Games (e.g., reaction tests, puzzles, memory tests). There are a lot of these, and they're fun and probably pretty extrapolable and/or transcodable.
  • Pervasive performance monitoring. Monitoring how well people are performing tasks is an expanding domain, with many potential privacy pitfalls. In our context it could be useful, however, in facilitating greater independence while providing awareness to the user or others about performance deterioration that may indicate an approaching crisis.

Points of Tangency in Daily Living

Most people with disabilities do not have any connection to professionals such as special educators, therapists, or AT practitioners who might be concerned with their performance and convenience. But they encounter situations every day where they interact with technologies or with people who might be interested in their technological performance. These  encounters can be engineered into an 'intake' experience (although obviously there are issues of privacy and annoyance if the bounds are overstepped). The intake experience can be limited to the needs of the moment, or it can be an onramp to a more complete evaluation.

  • Motor vehicle bureaus
  • Family and social network interactions (informal and formal, such as large-scale family reunions)
  • Home technology installations
  • Workplace evaluation
  • Educational institutions and their testing environments
  • Voter registration
  • Point-of-sale terminals
  • Wireless and other electronics/ICT retail stores
  • ATMs and online banking
  • Caregivers
  • Service workers [I saw a study showing how effective haridressers, postal workers, etc. were in identifying signs of dementia -- can't find it now]